Once upon a time, not long after super PACs came to roam the political landscape, politicians would solemnly note that they are required by the force of law to have nothing to do with their putative partners.

There were rules. Candidates could not coordinate with these political action committees, even as the outside groups spent millions of dollars in support of the candidates, particularly with negative TV ad campaigns. The candidates could not even talk to these groups, even if, as it often turned out, the super PACs were formed by ex-campaign workers.

We waited for the candidate to wink when explaining these relationships, but winking, too, was apparently against the rules.

And now? Candidates still say they can’t “coordinate” with their super PACs, although it’s unclear what “coordinate” means. We see candidates trotting out their own personal super PAC billionaires — most notably these days, Rick Santorum’s Foster Friess, who joked about contraception in his day, in which “gals” placed Bayer aspirin between their knees.

Santorum spent the next day trying to explain away the “bad joke” because everyone knows — no matter the winking — Santorum and Friess are joined at the money belt.

Candidates will even speak at super PAC fundraisers — but not apparently about how the money would be used. President Obama, who opposes super PACs, is nonetheless encouraging supporters to raise money for them. And at least four cabinet secretaries have expressed a willingness to attend their fund-raisers.

While we worry about the impact of big money in politics, we are not among those who think it should be unnecessarily restricted. Spending money on a campaign is a form of free speech and should be protected.

But we need real rules, starting with real disclosure and real definitions of “coordination.”

As it stands today, super PACs have to reveal their donors and their costs, although not in a particularly timely way. A presidential candidate could, for example, have worked his way from Iowa to Florida without his super PAC having revealed a single donor. With today’s technology, Congress could require donors be revealed in a matter of days.

A more important issue is the super PAC partner, its so-called political wing. They take advantage of the IRS’s tax-exempt 501 (c) (4) “social welfare” status to provide donors with anonymity. If, for example, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads GPS donates to Rove’s supposedly transparent American Crossroads super PAC, the original donors’ names never have to come to light.

It’s a shell game. There are laws limiting who qualifies as 501 (c) (4) groups — but new and clearer laws are needed to address these super PAC allies, which are hardly “social welfare” organizations.

Money is not the issue here. Disclosure is the issue. Democracy cannot work as it is meant to work without transparency. We need real medicine. Taking an aspirin — wherever we put it — will not help.